Louis-Ferdinand Sebum editor at Canard PC, shares with us his thoughts on the game He was pleasantly surprised by the game that finds the roots of Command and Conquer. It also outlines the main strengths of this new album, but also highlights a couple of things that could be a problem for the game

Here is a summary of information that is available including new information:

GLA: more oriented global narco-terrorism
- Units: rioters and terrorists start.
- Building and tech: weapons factory can be upgraded either toxin, either explosive.

EU high tech, like the U.S. of CnC Generals.
- Units: fragile, highly specialized, expensive.
- Buildings and tech: specialized buildings and numerous towers built to supply power to the buildings. A base that is highly consuming place.

Technical and Graphic
- Dynamically destructible buildings with interiors modeled (if HQ is taking a bad shot, you can see inside).
- Dynamic dialogues units (like Company of Heroes).
- Unfortunately still camera to the ground.

Game modes
- Skirmish.
- Multiplayer deathmatch.
- Mission coop.

monetization
- Try to avoid the pay to win.
- The game is not an MMO (not persistent in the conflict), but has a progression system.
- General unlockable by leveling or paying.
- Possibly cosmetic items to buy.
- Probably other things to unlock by playing or paying.

Here it is, took me quite a while to finish. Didn't translate word for word, but rather explained and paraphrased it. My writing style isn't constant here but it's just too much additional work for me to properly correct everything. If anyone is uncomfortable with me posting this, feel free to remove this post, I have no issue with that.

The reviewer had just started work at Canard PC. Boulon, his co-worker, gave him the DVD, which said "Command & Conquer 4 review version" and told him not to talk about it to anyone outside the writing team. They were both less than 30 years old this was Sébums (The author of this article) first big title and he was about to become a game tester, which made him proud. Turns out he thought it was a shame, as the game was horrible. Command & Conquer 4, 4/10, was his conclusion.

Now that hes been working for a few years, the author says that when the news came to him that he would be writing about the upcoming Free-to-Play C&C game, which had lost its subtitle to become an AAA Free-to-Play RTS, he was getting ready to write a cruel article, as his experience and knowledge made it obvious to him that the game wouldnt be of any good. He even talks about how it gave him the impression that the developers changed the title at the last moment, as if they were ashamed of their product, due to a woeful C&C 4, a Pay-to-Win Tiberium Alliances, and the fact that the game was distributed by EA. He admits that despite how much professionalism he has, he was funnily dead wrong on that. According to Louis-Ferdinand Sébum, this game is the worthy sequel to Generals. Not simply focusing on being a reboot, the developers put forward some ambitious decisions, which according to the author, may well give us the best old-school RTS in the past few years.

The article is built up, delving into what the Command & Conquer series is, and what each respective universe is to the other, with some focus later on Generals and Zero Hour. After presenting and detailing the first Generals and its expansion, he starts to talk about the game, making sure to let us know that this is an actual return to the roots. Forget the last 10 years of evolution, Dawn of War, Company of Heroes, R.U.S.E. are his words. Were going to be collecting supplies, building bases, expanding to other areas of the map and building massive armies and it is confirmed that there is no population cap. However, we can say goodbye to the singular resource system weve had in past C&Cs, rather, we now have 2 of them; supplies and oil. Supplies remain the exact same way they were, while oil, which is used to build more advanced units and structures, will be extracted by building a derrick on an oil slick and letting the resources accumulate, which is apparently good for exploiting oil that is on the other side of the map. Still, he suggests leaving a few units to defend these points of interest.

He quotes Jon Van Caneghem, who mentions that the most important thing for us is to remain faithful to the license. Sébum adds that he understands EA has some things it needs to be forgiven for after the latest evolution of the series, but that after going hands-on with the game, its obvious that the game is more than a simple Generals remake, but rather a synthesis of everything that made the series a success in the 90s (his actual words). Then he begins to discuss the factions the same factions from Generals are returning, albeit slightly altered; The GLA is less mid-eastern (We wanted an international narco-terrorist side to them VG Developers), the APA, or Asian-Pacific Alliance, is the equivalent of China, with big tanks, gattling tanks and masses of cheap units and the United States have their role taken over by the European Union, which is the new high-tech army that uses strong, costly and well-organized units. If theyre going for sci-fi, why not go all the way, after all? he says, and goes further with it by adding that it seems there are imports from other C&Cs, such as Europes Orca-like helicopters and the APAs hero unit (Le héros de lAPA, which implies its a male), which is an elite unit with a build limit of one, which is used similarly to Tanya from Red Alert.

Games are very intense and according to the author, feel like they are faster than those of preceding C&C games, but are not as hardcore as StarCraft, despite still leaving little place for mistakes. Units are fragile and can be lost within seconds, when being hard-countered (E.G.: Tanks destroyed by anti-tank infantry). The flame explosions are apparently very pleasing to behold, all due to the use of a modified Frostbite 2 engine that is used by the game. Sébum seems very impressed by the amount of details, specifying that they force [his] respect [for the game/developers]. Everything is dynamic, buildings are pierced by impacts depending on the speed and angle of the projectile, the inside of buildings is modeled, textured and allows to see the control rooms of your HQ after a bombardment has destroyed its roof, units bend over while firing or under enemy fire, vehicle suspensions react as they would naturally in real-life and almost, if not everything, can be destroyed, be it decorations, doodads such as vegetation and rocks and buildings. The author finds this useless, since people dont pay attention to such little details 90% of the time, especially when they barely occupy a few little pixels on the screen and actually criticizes the idea that they spent money on working out these details when the scale of an RTS is not the same as that of other games (FPS, RPG, etc.) and that they shouldve focused on making the zoom level more like Wargames: EE or Supreme Commander than StarCraft.

Afterwards, the author goes on about how factions are asymmetrical like in StarCraft and that resource collection is the same as in the first game for all 3 factions (EU fast helicopter, APA moderate truck, GLA Slow & cheap infantry, but can also build structures and is good at hiding on the map to rebuild bases). It is brought forth that GLA structures do not require power, arent numerous and that their production structures can specialize into either toxin weaponry or vehicle salvaging, which makes the GLA very flexible. The APA requires power plants, but they work in the same manner they did in previous C&C games. The APA techs up by upgrading their HQ (apparently theres no radius, either, unlike the Allies in RA3). Losing your HQ means you have to rebuild it and upgrade it (Which implies it works like the Hatchery/Lair/Hive evolution mechanic in StarCraft). The EU requires 2 structures to build infantry units, one for lower tech infantry, and the other for high-tech ones, which force players to think about what unit types they want to invest more in and use. All EU structures require a relay, to function, much like the Protoss pylons of StarCraft power up most Protoss structures.

Each faction is supposed to be aimed towards different crowds, according to the development team, with the EU being the basic faction, tailored to those coming from other RTS games. Sébum finds that the EU is the hardest faction to play as, due to the huge bases this faction has and the very expensive and specialised arsenal of units. Apparently, losing a small battalion of APA infantry isnt much of a big deal, but losing a Railgun Commando squad is, despite how the difference between both appears to be minor. He compares the EUs small number of powerful specialists to the APAs large number of medium types and moves on to the GLA, whose gameplay is, as he says, the most original and fun. The specialized terrorist units (referred to here as suicide commandos, and the angry mobs) used to be available at Tier 3, with the basic infantry being the RPG Troopers and Rebels, which is no longer the case. Instead, the insurgents, which are stealthy commandoes (and very efficient, too, if were to believe what the author says), are available much later on, with the early infantry units being composed mainly of kamikaze infantry and angry mobs. The articles writer goes on about how amusing it is to see silly hordes of crazed, slogan-yelling, almost-parkinsonian firing all over the place like newbies and overrunning high-tech NATO-type forces armed with futuristic SCAR-type guns. He also doesnt forget to specify that the GLA has still no air units, with one exception: An ancient, rusty helicopter that spreads toxins.

Next up, he delves into the support powers, which are back. They can be acquired throughout a match (as in the first game), but will be reset back to 0 after every game. Most of the usual powers have returned, and some of the powers include an EMP artillery bombardment, observation drones, carpet bombing, instantaneous repair of friendly units over a field of 50m, and sabotaging a civilian or enemy building. Weapons of mass destruction also make a return, with the EU getting an orbital laser of sorts, the APA getting tactical nukes and the GLA, the scud storm.

Despite the GLA losing its middle-eastern roots and China making place for the APA, Sébum reassures that the game isnt more serious or politically correct. GLA workers continue to mention their feet hurt and APA tanks still talk about their triumph over enemies with quotes such as Follow the cannon! and Enemy crushed by cannon! when ordered to move or attack. Units do not simply reply Yes, sir!, but rather, their feedback informs us of their situation (E.G.: When they meet with enemy units, youll hear things such as Enemy in sight, no problem or Enemy in sight, were under heavy fire, depending on what forces the enemy brings to bear, and may even ask for reinforcements if the going gets though). The author finds this feature very useful when fighting on multiple fronts.

Moving on to the online aspect, it is mentioned that there will not be a campaign mode, but that it will be possible to play skirmish vs AI in both single and coop modes and that we will also have scripted missions that reminded the author of the Generals Challenge missions from Zero Hour. Despite the limited AI currently present in the alpha build they tested, the missions were apparently well executed and enjoyed. The writer mentions having played an onslaught or assault mission, in which him and an allied player had the objective to defend their base against hordes of units that were under the orders of a European General, while striking back and destroying the EU Generals production structures. They apparently got steamrolled by the enemy. In addition to the skirmish and PvE missions, in the upcoming beta (which he goes on to say will come out shortly), well have 1v1 and team deathmatch alongside a domination mode and other modes should be added afterwards.

The next section discusses how Generals 2 got its subtitle removed, but not by chance, rather, that it became a platform rather than simply a game, which Victory Games and EA wish to develop. The Free-to-play game should not only receive new game modes, new factions and new generals over time, but also receive new universes, akin to a game titled ManiaPlanet by Nadeo. Generals 2 was the first universe to come out for this platform apparently because of how far development into the game was, and that other universes should follow suit, such as not only Tiberium and Red Alert, but even entirely new universes. When he asked about a potential fantastic medieval universe, the author was answered that everything is possible and that the goal was to build a free online platform to centralize the C&C franchise for the upcoming decades.

The author finds the idea is excellent, ambitious yet somewhat annoying, especially to see that an entire series of game that even if especially good, will force players to play with an internet connection even for solo modes, which does not please him. Another thing that does not please him is that he might have to forget about mods and map editors. Sébum was doubtful EA would succeed with this idea, despite having far more capacity than Nadeo and mentions that most online platforms and meta-games end up getting crushed under their own weight and that MMORTSs have never had any success (pointing to Age of Empires Online and End of Nations). Asking JVC, he receives the answer that Yes, MMORTS games are an impasse and it is why we just want to make online RTS. There is no MMO in there. There will be, according to JVC, online battles, a player profile with things that are unlocked as you level up, achievements, a lobby for organising games easily, but that it stops there and mentions how hes thinking about how World of Tanks does it. There will be no permanence at the gameplay level (which apparently lead to End of Nations demise, if were to believe what the author says is true), no campaign (which apparently made AoE Online too heavy), but only matches that are launched easily. Command & Conquer, the Team Fortress 2 of RTS? Why not? Sébum

Then follows the Free-to-Play aspect. The author says they will, after all, have to monetize it. He mentions how the developers have not stopped repeating that this is an AAA title, making him think its by fear of the cheap feel most F2P games have. He admits that this games development had to cost a lot. How? He asks JVC if it is by selling singular units, infantry hats, or by going pay-to-win, to which the answer turns out to be that they want all the players to be on equal footing in-game, be it the newbie player or the one thats been playing for a year, that everything that was accessible today in the game, a player that just started playing this game and paid nothing will also have access to, that everything will be unlockable by playing the game, without paying (with the exception of maybe some cosmetic items, but that that decision hadnt been made yet), that real money, like with good Free-to-Play games, will just allow you to go faster and that well have access to all 3 factions at the very start, but if we want a GLA general that will play more to our play style (with units and powers that arent necessarily more powerful, but altered, to correspond to our play style), wed have to unlock it, either by playing or paying. As for new factions, new game modes and new universes, it is not known yet if they will be accessible instantly, freely, or not.

The author concludes that he expected to see a disaster, but came back with hope and plenty of questions. He believes that this new C&C has everything to make a name for itself in the old-school RTS world and that the game platform aspect of it is worthy of merit, fitting the C&C series perfectly due to its multitude of universes. It is also very adapted to the F2P system (supposedly a permanent development period) and proposes something new to the RTS genre. While the author firmly believes JVC, he doubts that we can be certain of its success when it comes to the monetisation and what can be bought and is worth buying in-game until we at least have a beta version, if not a version 1.0 of the game. He admits the game will not be fun if the players have to grind for ages to unlock a single general; the effort should be worth the investment, to him. The ambition of this C&C project scares him, with him saying that the concept of developing multiple universes over more than a decade with such graphical and extremely costly details requires someone to be certain of their success, since many well-intentioned F2P titles have failed in the past (Especially due to financing issues).